Author
Topic: The Control Panel (Read 7788 times)

@bmarkus. >You are missing the basics of TC as well as press you are quiting:Not sure I understand you. but I think you maybe you misunderstand. I definitely don't think Core sucks. I've been using it as my primary OS for over a year.suck less is just my joking way of saying Core's really great.Which basics do you think I'm missing exactly?

>There are plenty of others to play with. It would be interesting to see the Core community mature Core to a serious dependable toolfor varied use cases, instead of limiting it to hobbyists. But, I don't really care. As I said, I don't really have a dog in this fight and I'm only interested in staying positive.

I suppose there might be lingering confusion about what is actually considered "base". One of the three ISO's being offered is ostensibly labeled Core, which would lead most people to believe that this provides all the base functionality. But earlier in this thread, "a frugally functional GUI" is asserted as part of "a solid base". So which one is it? Is the Core team focused on the Tinycore iso or the Core iso as the base? Again, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just pointing out that this will lead to subtle differences in design priorities, usage patterns, and developer actions.

The second question that comes to mind pertains to community openness.

With 3,739 extensions available for Core would seem to suggest it is open to the community. Over the years only a few "improvements" have been rejected. First I recall an individual demanded his tcz uninstall program be included in the base. It did not meet standards. Second, more recently, an individual demanded that sqlite and his 400k command line program be a replacement for Core's package manager. Most recent is the call for us to use unionfs/aufs. And now this episode. The OP stated that CP is ugly. Apparently because it does not use icons.

Not everything that anyone wants will be accepted. Core is not going to become Core-less. Basic design philosophies will be enforced. If you disagree with my decisions then as I wrote earlier there are many other distro choices available.

If it is accessible via a second binary and icon would you call it "overwriting of base system functions"?

Well, it would have to interfere with the base system functions to be of some use. What's if it is not updated regularly? I'm already seeing topics like "my remaster icon CP is not working with Core x.y". Especially since TC is under rapid development Lets turn this whole discussion into a more productive one... loads of icons for some nice eye-candy is not an option and everyone should be able to recognize this. It must be possible to generate nice icons on the fly, we could borrow some ideas from the 4k demo scene, eh?! A better design preserving the same size of the original CP is also surely worth a discussion! Core and Tiny Core just *have to be* more compromise-less than other OS'. That's the deal of it all - see it as a challenge, not a frontier.

Logged

If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said. (Alan Greenspan)

And now this episode. The OP stated that CP is ugly. Apparently because it does not use icons.

let me just say that you are a little unfair with me, I only said it would be nice if you could scale the fonts because I see little.

Quote

is nice, but I really just enough to change the font (because we must also consider the small monitors!)

Icons do not truly interest me much (I have also a small screen that would occupy the space useful to me).

However, I feel I could encourage people who wanted to do something that does not seem so bad.And even if I say something wrong (with a simple "is not too excessive?") I believe that we should be more willing to dialogue rather than belligerence.